Title
Supreme Court
CGP Transportation and Services Corporation vs. PCI Leasing and Fice, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 164547
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2007
CGP defaulted on loans secured by mortgages; PCI foreclosed, acquired properties, and sought possession. RTC suspended proceedings, CA reversed, and SC upheld CA, ruling writ of possession ministerial and injunction dissolved upon main case dismissal.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164547)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Loan Transactions
    • Petitioner CGP Transportation and Services Corporation (CGP) obtained two loans from respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Incorporated (PCI), amounting collectively to Sixteen Million pesos (P16,000,000.00).
    • The loans were secured by real estate mortgages over two parcels of land located in Bo. Cupang, Muntinlupa City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 172319 and 180241 issued by the Registry of Deeds for Makati City.
  • Foreclosure and Auction Proceedings
    • CGP defaulted on its repayments, prompting PCI to initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135, as amended.
    • During the ensuing public auction, PCI emerged as the highest bidder, and corresponding Certificates of Sale were issued in its name.
    • The Certificates of Sale were subsequently registered on November 19, 1997.
  • Dispute over Possession
    • CGP failed to redeem the foreclosed properties within the designated redemption period.
    • PCI demanded that actual possession of the properties be turned over, a demand that CGP refused.
  • RTC Proceedings and Orders
    • On April 12, 1999, PCI filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, seeking an ex parte issuance of a Writ of Possession.
    • CGP opposed the petition, leading the RTC, on November 15, 2000, to rule partly in favor of PCI by allowing ex parte presentation of evidence, emphasizing that:
      • The law permits the purchaser to file an ex parte motion for a writ of possession during the redemption period.
      • The pending status of any related civil action does not preclude the ministerial issuance of the writ.
    • CGP subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the scheduled ex parte hearing violated the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued in its favor (in Civil Case No. 99-234).
  • Reconsideration and Subsequent RTC Orders
    • On March 27, 2001, the RTC granted CGP’s Motion for Reconsideration by setting aside its earlier order and reinstating the preliminary injunction.
    • In response, PCI filed its own Motion for Reconsideration, and on August 30, 2001, the RTC maintained that issues raised by CGP necessitated a hearing in the presence of both parties.
    • The RTC opined that:
      • The verified opposition raised material issues of fact and due process concerns.
      • The involvement of the separate Civil Case No. 99-234 complicated the proceedings, prompting the need to suspend the ex parte proceedings until the appeal in that case was resolved.
  • Petition for Certiorari and Appellate Referral
    • Aggrieved by the RTC’s orders, PCI filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, particularly:
      • In nullifying the ex parte proceedings.
      • In reinstating the preliminary injunction from the separate case.
      • In setting aside the RTC order and suspending proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in Civil Case No. 99-234.
    • The petition (G.R. No. 150483) was referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals (CA) for appropriate action under Section 6, Rule 56 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
    • The Court of Appeals, docketing the case as CA G.R. SP No. 68528, rendered a Decision on March 26, 2004, granting PCI’s petition and setting aside the RTC Order dated August 30, 2001.
    • On July 13, 2004, the CA denied CGP’s Motion for Reconsideration.
  • Issues on Certiorari and Review
    • Petitioner CGP filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending that:
      • The decision of the CA erred in giving due course to PCI’s petition for certiorari.
      • A prior Supreme Court Resolution (G.R. No. 150483, dated December 3, 2001) had conclusively determined that the petition raised questions of fact and, therefore, was not proper for a Rule 45 review.
    • CGP’s argument emphasized that only questions of law should be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari, while issues of fact are within the exclusive jurisdiction of lower courts.

Issues:

  • Appropriateness of the Mode of Appeal
    • Whether the trial court’s resolution to handle issues involving disputed facts within the ex parte proceedings fell within its proper discretion.
    • Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is appropriate when issues of fact are substantially involved.
  • Discretion of the Lower Courts
    • Whether the RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion by:
      • Nullifying and setting aside the ex parte proceedings.
      • Reinstating a preliminary injunction connected to a separate but related Civil Case (No. 99-234).
    • The correct role of the lower courts in resolving factual disputes versus issues of law.
  • Jurisdiction and the Proper Subject Matter of Certiorari
    • Whether PCI’s petition should be entertained under certiorari, given that it raises questions involving factual determinations rather than pure questions of law.
    • Whether the Supreme Court’s earlier resolution conclusively barred further review on a petition that raised issues of fact.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms